Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 13:49:39
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phoenix 1-5stns, posted by Phoenix1 on December 27, 2007, at 12:29:10
> Hi Lou,
>
> I don't think I suggested that someone couldn't post something if they felt they had something to contribute.
>
> Clearly, you are advocating a completely open system where people are free to post whatever they want, when they want, and however often they want, as long as they abide by the civility rules. This is the current system. I don't think it's perfect.
>
> You have to recognize that there is a considerable level of frustration among many community members who feel their threads are "hijacked" by certain posters. These are posters who have probably posted to 50+ threads in the last few weeks. Whether their posts are of value is not for me to judge for the group.
>
> In my _personal opinion_, there are a lot of non-value added, non-supportive posts from a very small number of high-volume posters. To be honest, I feel frustrated. I hate to see someone ask for help and then see their thread veer off into something completely different because someone has used the thread to discuss something that I feel to be totally irrelevant. And then the deputy/Dr. Bob warnings and suspensions start as the frustration level grows. It's not a pretty situation. I'm just trying to think of a way to improve the situation. Do you have any suggestions as an alternative to what I am proposing?
>
> I truly understand your side of the argument, that limiting posting is, in effect, limiting free speech, and that it _could_ prevent someone from giving valuable advice or support, but I think it would affect only a very small minority of community members if the system was well thought out. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it doesn't seem like we're reaching common ground.
>
> Phoenix1
>
>
> > > Hi Lou,
> > >
> > > Thanks again for the input. You have an interesting way of snipping and pasting bits of my posts. I think sometimes this may distort what I originally posted, and often makes me double check to see if it sounded as negative as you have edited it sound. But it also shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant in the post.
> > >
> > > Back to the topic. Clearly, you are against the posting limit. That's fine, I didn't know what to expect in terms of agreement/disagreement when I initially posted.
> > >
> > > You also mentiond something else that is important and I forgot, which is that if someone wants email notification for a thread they have to post to it. I think this should be changed to. One should be able to subscribe to a thread without posting a message to it.
> > >
> > > I still think some form of posting limit would be beneficial to Psycho-Babble. I just sense growing frustration at certain posters, and there have been a lot of civility warnings and suspensions as a result, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. But I'm not Dr. Bob, and I'm not a deputy, so my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Again, thanks for the conversation. You've made a number of valid points against my suggestion, and I always appreciate some friendly debate.
> > >
> > > I'm still interested to here what Dr. Bob has to say on this. He's been running the board for a long while, and I'm sure this situation/proposal has come up before. I would also be interested to here what the deputies have to say, since they are dealing with the issues I mentioned on a daily basis.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Phoenix1
> > >
> > > PS If a 10 post a day rule were implemented, I don't think I would be able to pst this... Food for thought. (I'm not suggesting that 10 is the magic number)
> > >
> > > > > Lou,
> > > > >
> > > > > If a person has compulsions or feels compelled to post sometimes non-constructively, does this give them the right to negatively affect a larger group? Does there not need to some balance between personal freedom and the well-being of the community? (In this case, Psycho-Babble)
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you achieve this balance on a medium like Psycho-Babble? Certainly, the civility rules go a long ways, and are a valuable tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I say, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I have just noticed more general discontent lately over certain posters' habits. And again, I'm not picking on any specific individual. I can think of at _least_ two that would fall into this category. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and need to learn to ignore information that is not of value to me. Maybe this is an issue that bothers other people as well, and maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Lou, thanks for pointing out that compulsions may well manifest themselves in terms of posting habits. It honestly wasn't something I had considered, but it's a logical and valid point. It sort of re-frames the issue for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The original question still remains though; is a global posting limit appropriate?
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix1
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Dr Bob, Psychobabblers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I used to post under a different name, but have been lurking with the occasional post for a long time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I notice that there are certain posters that seem compelled to add a response to many, many threads whether or not it contains any pertinent information whatsoever. This often causes threads to veer off topic, and is generally not very constructive. I'm not going to point fingers at any specific individuals because there seem to be more than one, and I certainly wouldn't want to single any one out and make them feel bad about their posts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you ever thought about imposing a GLOBAL daily posting limit, where any account could not post more than X number of posts (both new threads and replies) a day? (X being a number that you choose and think is reasonable.) It would be a fairly simple feature to implement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This might keep people a little more focused, and they would think a little more about the value of the post they were contributing before submitting it. People would only contribute where they had something of specific value to add, or if they had a serious question or situation to discuss.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a question. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I just see a trend that seems to be frustrating the majority of posters. Please tell me if I am off-base with this suggestion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phoenix
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > It is written here,[...>compelled< to add a response...causes...not..constructive...]
> > > > > > Some people here do have battles with compulsions. It is part of the {nature} of some members of a mental-health community.
> > > > > > more...
> > > > > > Lou
> > > >
> > > > Phoenix,
> > > > You wrote,[...post non-constructively...negatively affect...balance...well-being of the community...how do you...?...I'm not trying...discontent...spacific individual...need to learn...Lou, thanks for pointing out..a logical and valid point...].
> > > > I find no fault with one here that posts posts that do not have relevancy to the thread's subject initially. Those type of posts I think can serve a usefull purpose as being a way for the poster to have posts from that thread show on their email later. The post could show an {intent} of that member to want to be a discussant in that thread, and that the member at the time of the post has not yet formulated their contribution to the thread's subject even though there could be interest by that member. I consider the intent of the member to be constructive and honorable.
> > > > more...
> > > > Lou
> >
> > Phoenix,
> > You wrote,[...Thanks again...interesting way...shows an interesting collection of what you found most relevant...I'm not Dr. Bob...thanks for the converstaion...you've made valid points...].
> > One question that I have concerning any rule that could have the potential to still one's voice in any community,is could you post here what good would it do for a community to still the voice of a member if the post is supportive and/or educational? If you could not post such, could you post here why not?
> > LouPhoenix,
You wrote,[...do you have any alternatives to ...].
In a community made up of people seeking support and education in regards to mental-health issues, I would not have in effect the administrative action of ostracism. Instead, my administrative approach would be to retain a member but have some sort of way to cause members to abide by standards that are helpfull to others and refrain from posting statements that could cause emotional/psychological harm to another here.
So I would have a published list of types of statements that are those that I would like to deter and they would be weighted as to the demerit that could be assigned to them for posting a particular type.
Then each member would start off with a number rating, let's say, 1500. If they post a statement that demerits them, then that would be subtracted from their rating. There could be amounts that increase the rating for posts that are exceptionaly contributing to the welfare of the community. So a person could have a higher rating than 1500. This rating would be next to the member's handle.
The deputies would do the maintaining of the ratings and after a while, a member could have their rating drop to a point that what they post could be ignored by the group!
Then there could be ratings that reach a level of concern and the member could be suspended from posting for a week. I would have these levels go by 300s so that when a member's rating drops to below 1200, they will be suspended for a week.
My scaling of the demerits would be like the following deductions from the member's ratings having different classes of ratings. Some could have 100 deducted from their raitng, others 50 deducted, others 25 deducted and others 10 deducted.
For instance, I would have 10 deducted for profanity and 100 deducted for an ethnic slur. I would use 50 deducted for accusations toward a member and 25 deducted for {hasty generizations} or sometimes called {jumping to a conclusion}. I would deduct 10 for non-contributory posts and 1 point deducted for statements that are deemed to be {highjacking}
I give a higher priority in a mental health community to keeping the member from being ostracised and I think that my system could be an alternative to ostracism.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802756
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802925.html